I provide an insider's view of the modern business world based on my years of experience working as an executive and consultant within the Global 3000. I am the CEO for Raynforest Inc, an Influencer Marketing Network, and the author of Socialized! which some call “the playbook for Social Business”. Want to learn more? Follow me on Twitter @MarkFidelman, Facebook, or circle me on Google+.

5 Ways Romney Could Have Won the Election With Data, Social and Mobile

The Romney camp burns. And I know what lit the match – if you’re interested. Despite the media pundits’ pontifications about women in binders, Big Bird and the Latino vote, I actually do understand the dynamics that overpowered the Romney campaign.

So what happened here?

In the landscape leading up to the election, there were two competing camps – each supplied with vast treasuries of donations. But one camp was far more prepared to face the electorate than the other. They had recruited a team of technologists who learned how to be politicians rather than politicians who needed to learn how to be technologists.

These technologists laid down the technical foundation for the success of the campaign. In fact, it was over even before it started because the opposing camp laid down a different foundation. A foundation based on an old political blueprint.

There are different and multiple reasons for President Obama’s victory, but to the extent they have a common denominator, it can be found in the data. But it wasn’t just data that secured his victory. It was how they used it.

The Obama camp used the data to run a more adaptive, agile and intelligent campaign. They set up a sophisticated feedback system and tested massive amounts of scenarios on potential voters. When they found key messages that worked, they adopted them wholesale into its social media infrastructure. As one Obama insider told me, “The community around the Obama campaign became more intelligent over time by constantly testing and sharing what worked.”

Yet what good is intelligence if there’s no efficient method to share it? Team Obama had an answer for that too. As reported in the New York Times, and confirmed by my sources, the real secret to Obama’s success was taking its intelligence and distributing it through social and mobile channels. They profiled and matched Obama volunteers with potential voters, so that they had a better chance of making a connection with the voter and were more likely to persuade them to vote for Obama.

In short, they analyzed, socialized and mobilized their voter base to victory.

Here’s how Romney could have out played them:

Despite news to the contrary, the Romney campaign was similarly equipped with data and analysts to crunch the numbers. Nick Judd of the Tech President sums it up best, “The Romney campaign was able to deploy all the same tools — website, mobile apps, social media like Twitter and Facebook and even a comparatively little-frequented Tumblr, a graphics and design department, and highly targeted online advertising — but was never able to point to an innovation that originated first in the Romney campaign and that yielded significant wins.”

Romney’s team also made the fatal mistake of failing to use that data to mobilize the base. I know of several influential Republicans that attempted and failed to receive instructions on how to help the campaign. They were ignored, rebuffed or told they weren’t needed. Big mistake.

But let’s look at how Romney’s team could have been more innovative than the Obama campaign. They could have out played them, and ultimately beat the President.

1. Data + Influence Marketing + Action = Success

Not everyone cares about George Clooney or who he votes for, but the Obama team’s data analysts knew he appealed to women aged 40-49. So the Obama campaign adeptly used this information to host a fundraising dinner with Clooney and Obama. According to Time Magazine, “The women were far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash, for a chance to dine in Hollywood with Clooney and Obama.”

Certainly a clever use of an influencer, but it was limited to a physical place with only a limited amount of room. The Obama team missed an opportunity to use Clooney’s influence more broadly and across many other channels to influence more votes.

For Romney to have had more impact here, the Romney campaign should have identified a targeted list of influencers that had influence over undecided voters. But not general influence per se, influence about topics that were important to the undecided voter. For example, if the campaign identified undecided voters that were unemployed (obviously a salient topic), the campaign should have mobilized economic influencers to target the unemployed, undecided voter with specific, pre-tested content using email and social channels. A broad, adaptive content marketing program will trump a single dinner with George Clooney any day.

2. Brand + Social Cause = Win Win

Neither camp took advantage of a new form of brand building through association with social causes. This can only be done cost effectively in the age of social media. Consumer product companies like Red Bull, Pop Chips, and Coca-Cola understand this, politicians do not.

Team Romney should have identified at least 5 major social causes that would have potential swayed undecided voters into the Romney camp and taken the air out of some of the Obama team’s allegations. Romney should have led some creative social campaigns to help such causes as breast cancer, youth unemployment or paths for legal citizenship.

One such campaign could have involved a “get out the vote” for breast cancer. A public contest where donations are made in the names of people that helped the campaign knock on doors, make calls, or write a blog post. Make it visible with leaderboards, get people with a shared passion for the party and the cause involved, and raise a lot of money. I can’t see Obama playing the Republicans hate woman card after a social campaign like that.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Negative feedback is data too, and using it effectively (rather than discarding it as coming from “nimwits”) is a critical part of any campaign. The GOP had a long time to sell both their platform and Romney in particular, and their message simply did not win over a large enough percentage of voters. Better tech wizardry won’t help much until the GOP takes a hard look at whether the party’s focus, definition of conservative, and view of our collective future is one which appeals to the majority of Americans.

Ann, the election was close at the national level. So I don’t think the messaging was that far off. The issue became the Romney camp failed to disseminate the messages amongst all of the noise. They didn’t mobilize their base to counter such ridiculous premises as the so-called “Republican war on women”. Like Republican women were declaring war on themselves. The Obama camp and a complicit media had the country believeing that the entire Republican party consisted of old white men.

The Romney camp also didn’t mobilize the base to put the Obama camp on the defensive. Only in the first debate did Romney score such a victory and it had noticeable impact.

Again, let’s not dive into politics here. The important part is how businesses can learn from the mistakes and successes of each campaign.

Excellent article. As a swing state canvasser for Obama, I however disagree on the lack of recognition for volunteers to energize them.

In September, I reluctantly realized a duty to do something to help and signed on for 1 door-to-door shift per weekend. As time went on, I increasingly felt valued by the campaign and by late Oct was enthusiastically working 4 shifts a weekend. I was included on a conference call with the President, given rally tickets to see the Obamas who repeatedly thanked volunteers, and constantly bolstered by team leaders & from campaign emails which created a wonderful esprit de corps. Our office became a supportive hub of friendly like-minded people on a mission, which was motivating in itself.

But most importantly, I knew my efforts were much needed as part of the vital ground-game nationwide to re-elect the President. It’s hard to see how the Obama campaign could have done more to motivate its volunteers, it was topnotch at that.

Mary, that’s great to know. Do you know if thius was systmatic within the campaign? I’d love to highlight it if possible. The politics are over – I am most interested in the incredible machine the Obama team put together as it draws directly from the concpets in my book coming out this week.

Mark, perhaps my positive experience was just that of the 3 neighborhood teams that shared our office, but I doubt it.

It was clear that the young paid staffers had been trained in “client relations” as they were unfailing supportive, understanding, and appreciative. Despite working 60-80 hours for 7-day weeks towards the end, the 3 staffers were always patient and worked carefully with volunteers to solve problems. They seemed to understand that the volunteers had to enjoy the experience itself, not just be there to help Obama win. I miss the staff and our team, in a little bit of mourning despite elation at the election’s result. I don’t think the esprit de corps the staffers created was an accident, it was by design.

That said, a lot of my motivation was often hearing via media about Obama’s excellent ground-game and its importance — and thinking “Hey, that’s me!” I just felt very needed and that was enormously motivating — more so than any perks like tickets to rallies etc.

Wow, thanks Mary for describing the spirit of volunteering that really did make a difference this time. I now feel guilty for not doing more…(smile), but that sounded like it would be a one time experience and sharing it your words made it seem really spectacular. What a great feeling when Obama won you all must have had…Cheers!

I had the same experience with positive feedback from the Obama campaign. Everything I did was recognized and they made it easy to volunteer. I hate to tell you this, Mark, but among many of the women I know, the Republican’s come off as being anti-woman. Especially against the idea that women are capable of controlling their own lives and their own bodies. We have daughters and granddaughters and want them to have the same freedoms we worked so hard to achieve.

The anti-women Republican thing is the product of a brilliantly executed Obama social machine – No need to discuss the politics – the execution was flawless and the Romney campaign wasn’t prepared to respond.

Chuck Winder: “I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that’s part of the counseling that goes on.”

Ken Buck: “A jury could very well conclude that this is a case of buyer’s remorse … It appears to me … you invited him over… the appearance is of consent.”

Rick Santorum: “I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you… rape victims should make the best of a bad situation.”

Richard Mourdock: “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

It is quite apparent that these are not isolated and unrepresentative “gaffes” but reflective of the political and social theories at the heart of the Republican Party. Further, this more than mere words. The Republican Party has attempted to pass laws requiring trans-vaginal ultrasound for women wanting an abortion. They have attempted to exclude contraceptive drugs from coverage under the PPACA.

The problem is not how the Democratic Party presented or communicated these facts, but that the Republican Party created these facts.